| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Some time ago I wrote this about yet another disingenuous piece by a Muslim moderate that was being enthusiastically endorsed by another well-meaning non-Muslim.
Of course, the reactions were fairly predictable: there was the knee-jerk avalanche of voices saying, "We need to support Muslim moderates, not attack them" -- ignoring, of course, the fact that what the guy said about Muhammad and the Qur'an was inaccurate, and thus unlikely to convince mujahedin that they were misunderstanding Islam and should lay down their arms. After all, it's very comforting for Western non-Muslims to discover that Islam really is peaceful, but it doesn't do a thing to lessen the strength of the global jihad. For that, the moderates would need to convince the jihadists, and to do that, their arguments have to hold up on Islamic grounds. But if I can see through them, the jihadists can too.
Anyway, Jihad Watch reader Anna has alerted me to a response from Dean Esmay to that post. I don't know who Dean Esmay is, to tell you the truth, but I understand he is a prominent blogger, and I was asked by several people to answer one of his posts not long ago -- I did so here. But when I wrote that, I didn't know that Esmay had written this:
That Jihadwatch piece is absolutely ridiculous by the way. Islam isn't "the religion of peace." It is a religion that emphasizes justice, and embraces love and peace whenever possible. As I already stated, clearly, the Koran says war is forbidden unless you're attacked and treaties with you are broken, then, you can open up the can of whoop-ass and spill all the blood you want. Jihadwatch then takes that and twists it around into an embrace of radicalists like Osama Bin Laden, and incoherently suggests that if we listen to moderate and reasonable muslims who say their religion doesn't preach violence, we won't be able to convince the violent radicals to change their minds. What a sick joke.And when he says there's no movement within the muslim world against the radicals, he's either lying or he's too ignorant to take seriously.
He is referring to me, of course. So I wrote him this response:
Hi Dean.This comment from you was just shown to me:
"That Jihadwatch piece is absolutely ridiculous by the way. Islam isn't 'the religion of peace.' It is a religion that emphasizes justice, and embraces love and peace whenever possible. As I already stated, clearly, the Koran says war is forbidden unless you're attacked and treaties with you are broken, then, you can open up the can of whoop-ass and spill all the blood you want. Jihadwatch then takes that and twists it around into an embrace of radicalists like Osama Bin Laden, and incoherently suggests that if we listen to moderate and reasonable muslims who say their religion doesn't preach violence, we won't be able to convince the violent radicals to change their minds. What a sick joke.
"And when he says there's no movement within the muslim world against the radicals, he's either lying or he's too ignorant to take seriously."
A few points:
1. Many Muslim clerics and traditional rulings of various madhahib refute your contention that only defensive war is sanctioned by the Qur'an. References available on request. Please provide an Islamic refutation of them sufficient to convince violent jihadists today to lay down their arms
2. Please quote exactly where I ever said anything like "if we listen to moderate and reasonable muslims who say their religion doesn't preach violence, we won't be able to convince the violent radicals to change their minds." I have never said or written that, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
I am all for moderate and reasonable Muslims. I am not for deceivers. I can provide you many examples of the latter. All I ask is that the moderates' presentation of non-violent Islam be adequate enough on Islamic grounds to convince or at least to provide competition for the jihadists' use of Islamic texts to justify violence. Most self-proclaimed moderate presentations, like Ali's, ignore or gloss over the uncomfortable material, instead of providing useful ways for Muslims to deal with it. That is simply not adequate.
3. What I have said many times is that there is no large-scale organized movement within the Muslim world against the radicals. Certainly there are many individual voices. OK, prove me ignorant: give me the names of such movement, and the size of each.
I invite you to a friendly debate/discussion on the role of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and fiqh in inciting to violence. We can conduct it by email and post it at our respective sites.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Director, Jihad Watch
But wait, it gets worse. In the course of writing the above email I looked around a bit, and found this:
The fact--the undeniable fact--is that American troops are fighting side by side with Muslims to fight terrorism all over the world. If you don't know that then SHAME ON YOU. And shame on those guys at Jihad Watch, who (traitors that they are) say nothing in defense of our Muslim allies and instead merely give us one unending shriek about the evils of Islam. It would be like reading something called "Jew Watch" that was dedicated to showing nothing but bad things done by Israel. Peh.
Why Esmay thinks that "Jihad" rather than "Muslim" is analogous to "Jew," I don't know, but I don't mind telling you that that "traitor" reference irked me. So I sent another message to Esmay:
I just read further, where you called me a traitor.All right.
Now's your chance.
Prove me wrong. Mop the floor with me, show the world that I know nothing of Islam, and rid the nation of my baneful influence.
Come on. I dare you. Take my challenge to debate.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Most likely, like Omid Safi, Ahmed Afzaal, Stephen Schwartz, and all the rest, he won't -- but will continue to sling his slanders, patriotic American that he is.
Posted by Robert at May 16, 2006 6:03 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Traitors? I suppose some called Paul Revere a traitor. Jihadwatch is a valuable source for the truth, there is a shortage of truth-tellers from my vantage point.
Posted by: Carolyn2![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 16, 2006 6:32 PM
"And shame on those guys at Jihad Watch, who (traitors that they are) say nothing in defense of our Muslim allies..."
-- from the article above quoting Dean Esmay
What "Muslim allies" are that? "Close ally" Egypt? "Staunch ally" Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia a "staunch ally" because, for its own reasons that were quite different from those which animated the United States, it helped suppy the Afghani mujahedin with weaponry, just as the CIA did? Was that because Saudi Arabia was offended by the human-rights record of Soviet Russia, or was it because Saudi Arabia was offended by Russian Infidels? Wasn't it Saudi Arabia that was one of three countries to recognize and support the Taliban, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates? And is Pakistan one of those "Muslim allies" because, under great pressure from the United States, and all sorts of debt relief and military devlieries, having been the incubator of the Taliban, and its people largely supportive of Al-Qaeda and other homegrown terrorist groups (fixation on Al-Qaeda is childish), Musharraf is doing the minimum to placate the United States, which for decades quite wrongly saw the Pakistani generals as stout fellows, so much nicer than Krishna Menon and those Indians, and of course wasn't Islam "a bulwark against Communism"?
And what other "Muslim allies" does Dean Esmay have in mind? Jordan, with the plucky little king (Hussein) followed by the slightly stouer and less plucky Abdullah, and where any efforts against local terrorism are undertaken not out of sympathy or solidarity with Infidels, but only to protect the ruling family (for the same reason Saudi officials will crack down on local terrorist groups that target the Al-Saud, but have no qualms at all about terrorism directed outside, at Infidel targets). Is that "Muslim ally" possilby the military regime in Algeria, because the generals in power have their own reasons for attacking the F.I.S. that wants, for its own reasons, to attack the generals? Is it that handful in Iraq who, for their own reasons, are, after much prodding and pulling (ask American officers and men about the bravery, the heroism, the trustworthiness, of the "Muslim allies" they have had to train and in some cases trust), occasionally willing to attack a target, as long as the Americans are there to push them, to take the lead, to come in to rescue them, and also, of course, to make sure that they do not betray the Americans. If those "Muslim allies" Dean Esmay talks about are so wonderful, why do the Americans never tell those "Muslim allies" in advance as to where a particular attack is going to take place? And why shouldn't Shi'a wish to attack Sunnis, or vice-versa? The real question, that remains unanswered by the Dean Easmays of this world, is why any Infidel should assume that the texts of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith, with all their inculcated hatred toward Infidels, would not, by many of them, be taken seriously?
If Dean Esmay cannot bring himelf to read and re-read these texts, and the commentaries upon them, and the work of Western scholars of Islam(he might start with two anthologies --"The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" and "The Legacy of Jihad"), and if he is not willing to read deeply in the history of Jihad-conquest and in the treatment of non-Muslims subjugated to Muslim rule (a book or two by Bat Ye'or would do) then he has no right to an opinion, and should be ignored. For everyone who presumes to offer an opinion on Islam has to know something first. Listen to Ludwig: "Whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak."
Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2006 6:33 PM
Robert - this guy is an obvious nutter - maybe denying him the oxygen of publicity - which is what he so obviously craves - is the best way to deal with this half-wit idiot - I mean his arguments are just pathetic - in other words - just ignore th c***
please excuse the french but I am scottish after all!!
Posted by: johnmac at May 16, 2006 6:34 PM
Traitors? I thought those of us who were concerned with Ideologies of war and intolerance were most concerned with our country and way of life. The Muslims who are with us on this, certainly are not getting the majority of this from the source texts, as Robert and others have shown quoting again and again from the original texts. I have yet to have seen or heard a Muslim refute any of this, other than a few Western eggheads. I am more concerned about how our enemies "interpret" Jihad and the man on the street thinks.
I know many in the Armed Forces who read this site so I will pass the word on about Dean Esmay.
at May 16, 2006 6:36 PM
The fact--the undeniable fact--is that American troops are fighting side by side with Muslims to fight terrorism all over the world.
Not true. Nowhere is a muslim fighting against terrorism. In Pakistan, they are defending their president when they fire at the jihadists. Not America. In Iraq, they conspire against the US troops at every turn. They wear a uniform, carry a gun, aim in a general direction, pull the trigger, hope they don't hit their buddies on the other side, and all just to collect a paycheck.
In America, no muslim speaks out against islam. They excuse it, apologize for it, downplay it, but never condemn it. The only ones that condemn islam, are strangely enough, no longer muslims.
No muslim takes up jihad against the jihad. They won't do it. Notice that even a 25 million dollar reward can't make them so much as tip off the Americans. Blood is thicker than water. Blood being religion, water being politics.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 16, 2006 6:38 PM
johnmac:
I would have, but he seems to have some readership. I would never have known about him at all, except that people started asking me about the things he was writing. So evidently some people are reading him -- and that's why I responded.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 16, 2006 6:38 PM
My thinking on these matters has evolved over the years. I used to believe the "small minority of extremists" lie that these dhimmis spout. Now when I hear such talk about our Muslim "allies" and the "beautiful religion of peace and love" I recognize an intentional effort to deceive. This Esmay, who I've never heard of and haven't bothered to look up joins Presidente Arbusto on my list of deceivers
Posted by: CufferHarvey at May 16, 2006 6:50 PM
Re: the traitor charge, given that Jihadwatch posters are not all Americans, but have a fair mix of Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Israelis, Indians, Australians and others, the "traitors" charge is even more ludicrous. Not all Jihadwatch posters owe anything in particular to any particular infidel country - be it the US, Israel, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, France, India, Australia, Thailand, Italy et al. The only thing we need to do, once the global Islamic threat of Shariah uber alles is recognized, is to oppose Islamic forces wherever they exist.
I'd turn the "traitor" label around. Any Infidel who becomes a Dhimmi and supports Islamic forces is a traitor for Islam - in the style of Vichy, Quisling, and Jaruzelski. Period!
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2006 6:59 PM
My thinking...What thinking...
"small minority of extremists"...{TINY}.
I recognize an intentional effort to deceive...{I think thats the whole idea}.
WAKE UP MAN! Do you want to let the world turn into the darkest place you could ever imagine in your wildest dreams?
at May 16, 2006 7:01 PM
I admit that I am a traitor -to Islam.
What else is Esmay talking about being traitorious toward?
The U.S. Constitution?
But that document recommends exactly this kind of free exchange of ideas and analysis of threats to its core meaning.
Or doesn't Dean grasp the irreconcilable nature of Sharia Law and the Koran with said Constitution?
This site is "Jihad" (holy war) "Watch", not "Muslim Watch". So the "Jew" nonsense Esmay mentions shows the intellectual acuity of this over-the-top, self-serving spinmeister.
It is all the usual ad hominem, misdirection, sleight-of-hand febrile flapdoodle, never referring the the grim sources of jihad in millenially-accepted Islamic thought (Hadiths, Koran, ad nauseam), and Esmay quickly descends to slandering, smugness and boarderline screeching.
Anyone can ignore the issue of the survival of Civilization to play their tin fiddle of smarmy superiority with a similar shallow, sententious and silly defense of the phantasms about Islam Esmay sets up and champions at the level of near-hysteria. As if they really existed. (Or as if Muslims even cared about his infidel defense of their declared Imperialistic dogmas.)
Mohammad was a documented pedophile, and yet is still considered the "perfect man" by Muslims. (Unlike Solomon or David or Noah- and all of the other flawed figures in the Judeo-Christian canon- who are thought of not as eternal models for ideal behavior, but merely as human-all-too-human examples of how men of the highest and best intentions can fail to live up to their God's commandments. So you can retire that predictable knee-jerk "The Old Testament-is-just-as-bad" argument, pre-emptively, Mr. E.)
Dean (Not-So-Swift) swallows the fact of Islamically-honored "prophet" Mohammad's cruelty, rapacity, pedophilia and predilection for assassination of his critics, as glibly as he apparently does every other maniacal aspect of this bizarre warlord's cult.
To emulate his own rhetoric:
This guy's got all the brainpower of a rusty hamster wheel.
(And the circuitous squeaking is tediously annoying.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2006 7:18 PM
“The fact--the undeniable fact--is that American troops are fighting side by side with Muslims to fight terrorism all over the world. If you don't know that then SHAME ON YOU. And shame on those guys at Jihad Watch, who (traitors that they are) say nothing in defense of our Muslim allies “ yada, yada, yada,
Ok I don’t know who this clown is or why he so loves our “muslim allies” nor can I speak for the entire American military machine. But, I offer this: After 20+ years of wearing the uniform, having had both muslim targets and allies (a few times) and routinely conversing with buddies still in the box, I think I can make an accurate assessment. Although a few muslims are “allies” few in the military trust them 100%. I think we realize not all muslims are created equal and some do want our help. Most of the ones I would consider allies would fall into the moderate category only because they pick and choose which muslim laws to follow. Oh, they pray 5 times a day but they also trade the Joes for porn, cuss and admit to drunken parties when visiting western lands. I’m sure they are much more pious when at home and do at some level respect western democracy. In the end they are not “good muslims” as they don’t faithfully follow the faith. They are “allies but most of us understand they also have an agenda. They want help to the point where their side has an advantage and then it’s “see ya, go home now” without as much as a thank you. You don’t have to take my word, recent articles qoute officers from all branches admitting to “allies” taking up arms against them. In truth they are not really much help and 99% of the fighting is not done by our “allies” they tend to be much braver when the Joes roll up to help. The ones that do fight want help building a nation state but a muslim state ruled under sharia not democarcy. In short, they need us. The need us to stabilize their communities because they can not. If real “muslim allies” exist where are the Armor, SF, and Air assets from our “allies”? You want stability? It takes warriors to get it and islam has very few. BTW, as a regular JW/DW poster I don’t consider myself a traitor, I do consider myself capable of making most grown men cry and would love to have dean meet me on a dark street so he can question my patriotism in person. Kinda childish on my side, I admit that but I have too many bad memories all involving muslims to be questioned by the likes of him. I’ll give him this, we do have muslim allies, I suspect the numbers are considerably lower than he would believe.
at May 16, 2006 7:20 PM
Infidel Pride wrote...
Not all Jihadwatch posters owe anything in particular to any particular infidel country - be it the US, Israel, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, France, India, Australia, Thailand, Italy et al.
Obviously I am an American and damn proud of it! However we cannot do it alone and we will need all of our friends help in this fight. The world of dhimmi's are lining up against America...The last best hope. We are all in this together!
Canada,Britain,Australia,Israel,India,Thailand,Italy,Denmark,Sweden,France,
at May 16, 2006 7:21 PM
tgusa
You are right - I wasn't implying that our individual nationalities are irrelevant. What I was implying was that Israelis, for instance, don't owe it to the US to strengthen US standing among the Iraqi Shia. But no infidel country should let down another, unlike the way the EU is letting down Israel on Hamas, Russia is letting down the US on Iran, et al...
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2006 7:39 PM
Ronin, brother, that offer of a beer still stands.
I first heard of the Esmay article on a friend's website (he was my first Operations Officer in squadron), he was citing it enthusiastically. I offered to Fisk it for him, but RS beat me to it, and I posted the link. We had a vigorous but well-mannered debate on the theme. Unfortunately, the Esmay piece has gained more than a bit of traction on MILBLOGs that should have known better, and who wouldn't take lightly to being called traitors for not trusting our "allies" as far as they can be thrown. RS needs to do as he has done, stand his ground and not back down.
Posted by: longtime lurker at May 16, 2006 7:48 PM
No Infidel country should let down another...
Exactly..We bailed out the EU back in 45 and returned all the NAZI looted Art.I hope we are able to save some this time! Next time we have to go in there we are staying! They have no idea who they are f.....g with.
at May 16, 2006 7:49 PM
This guy's got all the brainpower of a rusty hamster wheel.
(And the circuitous squeaking is tediously annoying.)
ROTFLOLCMSAW (there's a puzzle for you, Hugh!)
Thanks, profitsbeard.
Posted by: longtime lurker at May 16, 2006 7:49 PM
Dean Esmay said
Islam isn't "the religion of peace."
At least he got that part right.
The rest of it is namecalling ("incoherent", "ignorant", "ridiculous", "traitors"), with no substance to back it up. Just more vague generalities and downright falsehoods that even I could shoot down, and I didn't even spend my life studying the Qur'an and Sunah like the jihadists did. For example, Esmay said "the Koran says war is forbidden unless you're attacked and treaties with you are broken", which is contradicted by:
Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.” [nothing here about "if you're attacked", just kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, period]
Qur’an 4:89 “They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah’s Cause. But if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.” [still looking for that "if you're attacked" clause, Dean]
Qur’an 4:91 “You will find others who, while wishing to live in peace and being safe from you to gain the confidence of their people; thrown back to mischief headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and offer you peace besides restraining their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear sanction and authority.” ["if they offer you peace...kill them"]
Qur'an 7:97 "Did the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they were asleep? Or else did they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they played about (carefree)? Did they then feel secure against the Plan of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!" [gotta watch out for those sleeping people attacking you!]
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
If a 98-pound intellectual weakling like me can defeat Dean Esmay's arguments, Robert or Hugh would mop the floor with him. And the jihadists would eat him for lunch. Next!
at May 16, 2006 8:09 PM
longtime lurker, I think the word traitor is a much bigger insult to those of us who have worn the uniform and rightfully so. Normally, I would consider the source and to be fair to dean, I didn’t read his posts nor do I know who he is or for that matter care. We both know many military officials read JW/DW and I have always suspected Intel geeks both in and out of uniform do the same. Maybe like your other post suggested not the leadership but the ones who do read, study and learn will all gain rank and position. I’m not worried about our future leadership, many in uniform are getting up close and personal with islam daily. They will gain powerful positions in the future both military and civilian. Our nation is headed in the right direction and if I was a muslim (not just an imam, lol) I would be worried.
Robert, Rebecca and Hugh are a national asset. They can simplify a complex problem where even I can understand it. I will admit to using a dictionary when Hugh is around, sheeez. I’ll gladly take you up on the beer someday. I think I have left enough clues by now that anyone with a military background could easily figure out which unit I retired from, although it is none of their business. I try and not dwell too much on the past and have only a limited connection with the military now but I am always up to talk story with another vet. Maybe some day, I’ll join the VFW, American Legion or some unit association but for now I am busy making up for lost time.
at May 16, 2006 8:18 PM
Robert, you signed your emails to Esmay, "Cordially".
And based on your writings, and your omnipresent smile in all your photos, I think you really mean "Cordially". Not a trace of irony or sarcasm. Even when some jerk calls you a "traitor", you are patient and respectful in your response.
As always, an example to us all.
Posted by: special_guest at May 16, 2006 8:18 PM
"ROTFLOLCMSAW (there's a puzzle for you, Hugh.."
-- from a posting above
"I have waited for a long time to ask you a question," said he, looking fondly at her.
"What is it?" said Kitty.
"This is it," said Levin, taking the chalk and writing the letters w, y, s, i, i, i, w, i, i, t, o, a? The letters were the initials of the words, "When you said 'It is impossible,' was it impossible then, or always?"
Kitty studied the letters long and attentively, and at length took the chalk and, blushing deeply, wrote the letters: t, I, c, n, a, d. Levin's face soon beamed with joy. He comprehended that the reply was: "Then I could not answer differently." Everything was settled. Kitty had acknowledged her love for him, and Levin at last was happy."
In the original Russian of "Anna Karenina" the words, and therefore the initials for those words, are different.
But I was unable when I read the book to guess the answer for either chalked message, by Levin or by Kitty, in Russian or in English, and I haven't gotten cleverer since. So I won't be able to figure out what ROTFLOLCMSAW stands for.
But unlike some around here, who couldn't wait for that answer to the famous quiz (Chenier, Pushkin, and Mickiewicz -- by the way, there's much more to come as part of the full answer)I can be patient.
Still, if you feel like explaining right now...
Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2006 8:20 PM
Ronin, God bless you.
Hugh, I wish I could write like you.
at May 16, 2006 8:25 PM
And so when in 610AD during the censored regime of the Satantic Verses, the awful Mohammed threatened his neighbors with doom, caravan-robbery, and murder, he was the victim. Forget the surah, don't give a rat's ass what surah it was. Is. Screw Islam and all its totally worthless surahs.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 16, 2006 8:36 PM
Hugh said "Chenier, Pushkin, and Mickiewicz"
And the curtain opened ever so slightly.
And, yes, some of us did forego the dinner date for the evening, though admittedly not the kiss in the dark, to hear the results. Patience. Yes, patience.
Posted by: special_guest at May 16, 2006 8:42 PM
dean esmay is an ass who believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
many mistake him for a centrist because instead of taking the right and un-PC path he often splits the difference - as when he comapres your blog to a fictional one called JEWWATCH.
this is the type of irrational/off-point arguing that many confuse with moderation, as when one lumps together all armed opponents in a war and say they should all obey rules of war, when the truth of the matter is ion this war only one side obeys the rules of war. (in this example it is right to criticise the enemy and praise the US military. but assh-les like esmay never seem to have the courage to do that.)
all the best.
keep fighting baby!
the truth will always win in the end.
jerks like dean don't count.
Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at May 16, 2006 9:04 PM
Esmay's apparent idea of reality is to wear blinders and convince himself that they're sunshades. I doubt this guy has ever opened a Kuran in his life (and I daresay he never will).
Self-delusion may prove a formidable enemy in fighting global jihad if this guy is any indicator.
at May 16, 2006 9:21 PM
Actually jewwatch does exist. Its a vile anti-semitic site. In the disclaimer it claims to be "NOT a hate site, just an information bank for research and educational purposes."
But just glance at the articles and you can see through the facade.
at May 16, 2006 9:29 PM
Ronin, God bless you.
Hugh, I wish I could write like you.
Posted by: tgusa
Thank you, tgusa. Bless you as well but please keep the kind thoughts and heavenly help directed at the JW/DW crew. They are the reason we are here. I am just a concerned citizen attempting to help them spread the word. I know they don’t need my help but it makes me feel better.
Posted by: Ronin at May 16, 2006 9:46 PM
Esmay wrote: "clearly, the Koran says war is forbidden unless you're attacked and treaties with you are broken, then, you can open up the can of whoop-ass and spill all the blood you want."
Spencer responded: "Many Muslim clerics and traditional rulings of various madhahib refute your contention that only defensive war is sanctioned by the Qur'an."
I think it's important to add that in the Islamic lexicon, "defensive" is not usually what we in the West consider as defensive, but is often rather a justification for retaliation against those who are in fact defending themselves against prior Islamic offense based upon the Muslims' divinely mandated mission for eschatologically motivated supremacist expansion (cf. the Crusades, to pluck one example of 1,001 out of a turban).
Posted by: Television at May 16, 2006 9:49 PM
Hugh, I am taking a huge gamble here in guessing that ROTFLOLCMSAW means:
rolling on the floor, laughing out loud 'cuz my skivvies are wedged. hmm. Not quite there, yet. I'll get back to you on this.
at May 16, 2006 10:27 PM
Okay, rollingonthefloorlaughingoutloudleastcommondenominatorSAW? Is that it? Am I close?
Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2006 11:18 PM
RollingOnTheFloorLaughingOutLoudCozMySmileAin'tWaning?
It's that CMSAW that holds so many fecund possibilites. ("Chucking My Sneakers And Wiggling"?) ("Calling Mohammad Slimy All Winter"?)
I give.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2006 1:22 AM
I find it odd that you'd email this to me and invite me to an email debate we could then public to our respective sites, and then immediately post your challenge in public. Odd, that.
I also am amused to see how many of your commenters are heaping abuse on my head and even bringing up meaningless side issues that have nothing to do with the discussion.
I'll give it some thought and post about it shortly.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at May 17, 2006 2:04 AM
Poor Dean, heaping abuse but don't like it heaped back.
While you're "thinking", how about reading the [shorter than the New Testament] Koran [al-Qur'an] for a little refresher about the essence of the debate?
Sura 9:29-30 is always amusing.
Or Bukhari's Hadiths.
Especially Volume two, Book 26, Number 666 (for the "prophet" Mohammad's only prophecy)
Or Volume 3, Book 38, Number 508 for the "Perfect man"'s progressive view on women's rights.
(We iggerunt traitors managed to learn how to read, 'n use up to two fingers to type, 'n soon we'll be walkin' upright, 'n maybe one day. Inshallah, we'll even learn how to tapdance as good as you!)
Was your school's motto:
MUNDUS VULT DECIPI
by any chance?
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2006 2:48 AM
I believe an enlightened form of Islam is developing, not least among Muslim immigrants in the west.
If we don't allow that to happen, we'll be stuck with an interpretation of Islam tarnished by the anger and envy of people in the Middle East whose lives suck.
That's not to say that we should close our eyes to the radicals that are infiltrating our immigrant communities.
But why not give the good guys a break?
Posted by: Vagn Henning at May 17, 2006 4:39 AM
Dean Esmay,
I am a Hindu from India. I say Islam promotes violence. I will tell you tales of muslim carnage throughout my country. I will tell you the muslims made afghanistan, pakistan and bangladesh from Hindu India. I will tell you they butchered (not killed, butchered) hundreds of millions of Hindus in their aggression on India. I will tell you that Kashmir is the only muslim dominated state in India, and now muslims want Kashmir. Do not be angry with this suggestion, read some books before making comments.
at May 17, 2006 5:09 AM
I think what needs to be distinguished here are islam as a doctrine and muslims as human beings.
What Robert has done here, he has exposed the hate and violence in the doctrine of islam so that an average western person like me can understand.
And what Dean Esmay suggests is that you should also get acquainted with islam from other sources like discussing with muslims and reading books written by researchers of islam. This way you get a more balanced view on the subject instead of relying on news items that only confirm your prejudices. In this issue Esmay is right.
However, I don't think based on his posts that Dean Esmay has bothered to examine the violent content in the doctrine of islam and how it could be removed to make islam suitable for the modern world.
He also forgets that there are people like Ayyaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq that know what islam is like from the inside. They agree that islam should be reformed and the chances for reform are not great. Ali Sina, on the other hand, regards islam as cult of hate that cannot be reformed and that needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth.
What is still missing is the way an "average" muslim views his religion. I think the armed jihadists do not represent the majority but the ones that condone their actions might do. That, in itself is enough cause for alarm.
Posted by: Saatanan Islam at May 17, 2006 5:22 AM
Dean Esmay:
Thanks for dropping by.
You say: "I find it odd that you'd email this to me and invite me to an email debate we could then public to our respective sites, and then immediately post your challenge in public. Odd, that."
Why do you find that odd?
Nowhere did I say that I was asking you to engage in some private exchange. I don't have time for that. Your charges and slanders were public. My challenge should be private?
I specified email as opposed to going to some hall with you and standing at podiums.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
at May 17, 2006 6:47 AM
"Islam isn't 'the religion of peace.' It is a religion that emphasizes justice, and embraces love and peace whenever possible."-Esmay
As in Saudi Arabia? How can it be "just" to be Hinduphobic, Buddaphobic, Christaphobic, athiestphobic, to not allow people to have freedom of conscience in the matter of religious beliefs and worship? Esmay-you would protest this condition in Saudi Arabia if you believed in justice for all people regardless of their religious beliefs.
My guess is you are a fraud and a coward. You are not just and will not protest such oppression in Saudi Arabia.
Is it not oppression?
Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2006 6:53 AM
"Justice" doesn't mean the same thing for the Mohammedans. It means Sharia, Muslim rule. It means subjugated people, dhimmis, where the lowliest Muhammedan counts for more than the highest ranking infidel, where dhimmi's pay the Jiziya and 'feel themselves subdued, fearing for their lives and their loved ones, and being constantly harassed and attacked like the Copts in Egypt.
That kind of 'Justice'- is the Islamic variety.
And you should be 'open-minded' to understand that...do you?
at May 17, 2006 7:47 AM
"It would be like reading something called "Jew Watch" that was dedicated to showing nothing but bad things done by Israel."
It's called the BBC isn't it?
Posted by: Jinnee at May 17, 2006 8:35 AM
"I believe an enlightened form of Islam is developing, not least among Muslim immigrants in the west.
If we don't allow that to happen, we'll be stuck with an interpretation of Islam tarnished by the anger and envy of people in the Middle East whose lives suck.
That's not to say that we should close our eyes to the radicals that are infiltrating our immigrant communities.
But why not give the good guys a break?"
-- a posting above
One may "believe" an "enlightened form of Islam"
is developing -- but on what basis has that belief been formed? Anecdotal evidence from a few Muslim acquiantances? Constant monitoring of the Muslim press and television? Scholarly works by Muslims re-interpreting Islam? Tutto fumo, niente arrosto. A lot of talk, a lot of waving about of the word "reform" but in the end, no conceivable or believable attempt to change the actual text of the Qur'an -- how could it, the immutable word of God, be changed? -- and no plausible explanation as to how, at this point, to suggest that more than a thousand years of the fixed interpretation of that text should somehow now be changed, and what's more, have that change accepted by a billion mostly very primitive Believers? And how, and with what authority, could any one today, including those Muslmis living in the West who are good at being given grants (by the Carnegie Foundation and others) for various "reforming Islam" projects, and explaining that that they are indeed working on "reform" but without ever explaining how they think the Muslim masses could ever accept a reworking of the Hadith, so that many of those classified as "authentic" by al-Bukhari and Muslim would now be demoted and classified as "inauthentic"? It can't be done. And how would Muhammad receive his moral makeover, so that Asma bint Marwan, the Khaybar Oasis, the decapitation of the Banu Qurayza prisoners, the kililng of Abu Akaf, little Aisha, and so much else, would somehow disappear from his biograrphy? Can't be done. One would like it to happen, and no doubt one's plausilbe, amiable Muslim friends, some of whom may not accept any of this but also apparently cannot make the break with Islam that is the only sure guarantee of gaining Infidel trust (how, knowing what we now know about Islam, can we conceivably trust anyone who, also aware of what Islam teaches, nonetheless persists in attempting to inveigle us into believing that it is okay, that it can be changed, that we needn't worry about any except those "extremists" -- it's nonsense).
When what is at stake is so important -- to begin with, individual liberties as opposed to the collectivism of Islam, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, free and skeptical inquiry, artistic expression, the equal treatment of women and non-Muslims, all of which have always been threatened by, or completely trampled by, Islam, one has a right not to make decisions about Islam based on some nice Muslim friends.
It is entirely possible to have those "nice Muslim friends" and still insist that one cannot make policy on that handful, who have an obvious personal stake in Infidels not becoming alarmed about Islam. But no can do. It is they who have to
1) stop lying about the content of Islam
2) admit that the overwhelming number of Muslims do believe what Islam teaches
3) that it would be foolish for non-Muslims to rely on some kind of promised, but never quite delivered, and impossible of delivery, "reform" of Islam
4) there is not time to wait for this "reform" or change of heart in any case -- the Da'wa and demographic conquest of Western Europe could, within a few decades, create a situation of intolerable unpleasantness, expense, and physical danger for Infidels, and for their freedoms, their art, their science (as has already occurred but to an even greater degree.)
5) it is misleading to make judgments about Islam based on the "moderate" Muslms -- a telling phrase, that -- that is, the unobservant, the indifferent, those who are either ignorant of, or deliberately wish to ignore, a large part of Islam. They think that if they dismiss it, then Infidels should be willing to dismiss it as well. No.
at May 17, 2006 8:58 AM
Well, what I meant was:
Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud Clutching My Sides And Weeping.
But like all hegemonic narratives, its subject to deconstruction and reinterpretation to better suit our gendo/ethno/sexo/schizo alternatives, or something like that.
Posted by: longtime lurker at May 17, 2006 10:09 AM
eteratz wrote:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Please provide an Islamic refutation of them sufficient to convince violent jihadists today to lay down their arms."
LOL. Pardon me? Someone tell this guy that TALKING TO AL-QAEDA AND TERRORISTS is simply not possible (unless they are in prison). Spencer claims to have been to the Muslim world, but I don't think he's ever actually talked to a terrorist in training. Those guys aren't into talking. They are into shutting you up. I went to Pakistan in 1999 and went to the NWFP deserts to talk to some militants. Yeah, I should write about what happened, because talking certainly didn't.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The violent jihadists use Islamic arguments to support their activities. Maybe they are believers maybe they are just power hungry. Bottom line is that their Islamic arguments seem to be effective in recruiting more jihadists (e.g., the North Carolina SUV attacker). What Robert is asking is to come up with equally or more valid "Islamic" arguments that demonstrate that the jihadists' behavior goes against the tenets of Islam. The NC SUV attacker would not have gone on the rampage if someone had shown him better "Islamic" arguments. If the jihadists are only pathological killers with weak "Islamic" arguments, there would be no recruits into their forces. So far it appears that their "Islamic" arguments are more "Islamically" correct until someone shows better "Islamic" arguments.
So far, it seems that the jihadists do have the stronger "Islamic" arguments due to the quran being written in a war environment, the behavior of Mohammed against non-muslims, the concept of abrogation of earlier pacific verses vis-a-vis the verse of the sword, etc. The undercurrent to Robert's requests is frustration because it seems that the jihadists get it right when it comes to "Islamic" arguments and none of the so-called moderate muslims can come up with something more "Islamically" correct against jihadism.
Posted by: 2pacshakur at May 17, 2006 4:11 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)